Search Documents

By Ken MacLeod

A development at 83 Queens Road in Melbourne, Australia required construction of a three level basement. The normal geotechnical constraints of excavating adjacent to an existing relatively new building were challenging enough for the complicated soils profile occurring at the site. An additional significant challenge faced by the designers, was the requirement to excavate underneath the entire footprint of an existing heritage listed building, known locally as the Mansion, in the centre of the site. Maintaining the structural integrity of that building was afforded the highest priority during the 10m excavation. This paper describes geotechnical aspects of the analysis, design and construction of the secant retention system adjacent the new building and support of the Mansion enabling the 10m excavation to proceed without causing damage to the structure. The secant wall comprised hard-soft interlocking piles constructed using CFA methods. CFA piles along the length of the Mansion provided short term support, with the building load being transferred to the piles by large steel beams jacked under the building. Survey results confirmed that movements of the retaining wall and also the load bearing piles were minimal and well within design expectations.

Jan 1, 2006

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Craig T. Jones, Zachary Q. Maassen

"Jet grouting is a method of ground improvement that relies on the erosive capacity of high-speed jets to cut and mix the ground in place with a cementitious grout. A continuous return flow of cuttings, called jet grout backflow or spoils, is expelled to the surface during the grouting process. Data from projects completed in Toronto and Ottawa is presented where BOS Solutions’ services provided significant savings compared to the traditional spoils treatment utilizing vacuum trucks for spoils disposal. These traditional treatment methods are cumbersome and expensive by nature. BOS Solutions provided an alternative solution that is environmentally friendly and capable of handling full flow to process these jet grout spoils utilizing a tank system paired with centrifuges and flocculation additives to remove the ground soils and grout product from the spoils slurry. BOS’ process produced a clean water for reuse in the project while reducing the overall waste volume by producing a dry, stackable solid that could be hauled to a landfill. Benefits observed by using the BOS process were disposal waste volumes decreased over 30% and at least a 19% reduction on disposal costs.SCOPE OF WORKJet grouting is a method of ground improvement that relies on the erosive capacity of high-speed jets to cut and mix the ground in place with a cementitious grout. A continuous return flow of cuttings, called jet grout backflow or spoils, is expelled to the surface during the grouting process. The backflow, or spoils, is a mixture of grout, water and soils. Traditionally, the spoil would be collected in in-ground pits and allowed to solidify for a few days prior to hauling to a final disposal site. For the projects completed in Toronto and Ottawa, the jet grouting work was performed at street level, in high traffic congested areas, presenting the challenge of insufficient space for the contractors to process the jet grout spoils in the traditional way. At first, attempts were made of using vacuum trucks to collect and haul the wet spoils to an off-site location where the spoils would be allowed to solidify. However, this method proved cumbersome and expensive due to the high volumes of spoils generated daily and the high number of vacuum trucks required to support the jet grouting operations, respectively."

Jan 1, 2017

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

Feb 10, 2003

By Karen C. Armfield, Gisele R. Passalacqua, Joanna Smith

When selecting a solution for improving resiliency at facilities, such as airports, utility and transit sites, there are many options to protect structures and equipment against potential flooding. Each case involves an evaluation of the several key factors such as: design flood parameters, the geography and geological conditions below the site, the facility, and the layout of buildings and equipment to be protected. Upon reviewing these conditions and conducting a cost analysis of various options, the most suitable approach to protecting a facility can be determined. This paper will compare the conditions at various New York City sites, and give detail to the solutions utilized at these sites to improve resiliency and protect each facility. Flood wall types varied as did the strategies for raising critical equipment, to meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 guidelines. Due to granular soil conditions, some sites may experience soil seepage below the flood wall resulting in the need for underground cut off systems. The authors will also present detail regarding the solutions used to control seepage. Various cut off systems will be discussed such as grouting and sheeting, explaining the factors that may impact the choice of systems. Another consideration in flood resiliency is the potential for a buoyancy condition on basement slabs when localized flood barriers are employed on first floor doors and windows. The authors will discuss the potential impacts of this condition on facilities and methods to mitigate this issue. 1. INTRODUCTION New York City is an urban coastal Metropolis with varied geology and low land areas. This includes but is not limited to sandy soils at Coney Island and the John F. Kennedy Airport. Soft marshes are found near Flushing Queens and LaGuardia Airport. Heavy rains and coastal storms caused disruption to daily life and heavily affected the economy of this vibrant City. For instance, in lower Manhattan business was interrupted in the Financial District. Power outage was widespread; commuter trains and subways were stopped and put out of service. Additionally, numerous residential homes were damaged in Coastal Neighborhoods such as the Far Rockaways and Staten Island. 1.1. Superstorm Sandy Flood Statistics On October 29, 2012 Superstorm Sandy impacted numerous facilities in the New York City Metro area. The resulting damage cost New York City more than $42 billion in repair costs. $33 billion was allocated to repair housing and infrastructure, and $9 billion was allocated to protect transit systems1. One of the major issues that impacted the city in terms of its preparedness was the high flood surge. The surge surpassed the former base flood elevation and reached as high as 13.88 feet (above mean lower low water - MLLW) in Battery Park at 9:24pm that evening. Tottenville, Staten Island experienced more damage where the water was recorded at +16 (North America Vertical Datum of 1988 - NAVD88), which is equivalent to 18.7 feet above MLLW (see Fig. 1). Not only was the surge at record levels, the waves in New York Harbor were also at record level where some buoy stations recorded waves of up to 32.5 feet. The City released “A Stronger, More Resilient New York” in June 2013, a plan laid out to rebuild communities impacted by Sandy and improve the resiliency of the infrastructure and buildings in New York City. Figures below help to illustrate the extent of the inundation relative to the projects being discussed.

Jan 1, 2018

By Patrick E. Durnal

The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was built in the early 50s' and was first opened to traffic on August 31, 1956. Among California's longest steel bridges, it spans more than 21,000 feet across the northern portion of San Francisco Bay. It is one of six toll bridges currently undergoing seismic retrofit in the Bay area. Current retrofit criteria require the structure not to collapse in a Magnitude 8.3 earthquake lasting 45 seconds on the San Andreas Fault. The earthquake epicenter is 10 miles to the west of the Bridge, near the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Another major fault is the Hayward Fault, with a potential of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. It is only 4 miles east of the eastern end of the bridge. The retrofit criterion is that the structure survives these earthquakes without collapse or loss of life, and that they are capable of repair within a period of one year. Therefore an energy absorbing, ductility and nominal resistance based approach to the retrofit design have been adopted for the retrofit of this bridge. Foundation Retrofit The foundation retrofits were designed to satisfy of drift criteria of 6 inches at the base of the footings, and to keep the existing H-piles from experiencing unacceptable levels of permanent soil displacement and /or structural rupture. Full-scale structural lateral load testing of BP14x89 piling, to rupture, has helped to determine the drift criteria. However recent non-linear analytical results, have led to a redesign, which may allow for 12 inches of drift. The as-built analysis of the Micropile piers determined that those piers would not exceed the 6-inch drift criteria so lateral resisting shear piles were not needed at those piers.

Jan 1, 1998

By Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect project-specific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project. 1. SCOPE The work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, and testing helical piles used to support foundation loads (compression, tension and lateral), and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment and materials necessary to install the required piles. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows: • The Owner is the property owner. • The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to design and oversee the overall project. • The pile designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical piles. • Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical piles, and possibly tasks associated with the project. It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development. The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of pile performance if required by the Owner or the pile designer to confirm performance of the piles subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional piles if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2015

By Rahul Wankhade, Sunil S. Baswankar, Aditya S. Kharatkar

Despite advances in pile design methodologies and piling techniques at site, difficulties and uncertainties still exists for design of piles particularly in coralline deposits and weak carbonate rocks. Such deposits are known to be heterogenous in nature, and occupy major stretches of earth, where piling experiences are probably very scanty. Such deposits are associated with low unit weights and usually consist of weakly cemented calcareous and carbonate soils interbedded with coral rocks containing cavities, which are completely void or filled with coral debris. Many of the studies indicate that conventional parametric relationships are may not apply to such sediments and rock formations. This paper intends to provide an appraisal of the available information that cautions against risks involved in conventional design practice and also serve as a guideline for pile design in such formations despite being a grey area of research. Contents of the paper is expected to provide a basis for the pile design and likely to serve as an eye-opener for research into this important soil-pile structure interaction problem.

Sep 1, 2022

By Bernardo J. Jiménez Vega, Edy L. T. Montalvan PhD

The experience gained during more than 900 Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) tests on drilled shafts shows the importance of establishing proper project acceptance and repair protocols. Drilled shaft evaluation is a multidisciplinary task that should not be left solely to the outcome of the CSL test. This test allows to characterize and delimit areas of different qualities of concrete, and it is important that all the interested parties understand the difference between flaws and defects. The information presented here is intended to give a guideline to contractors, inspectors, engineers, owners and clients on how to deal with acceptance and remediation of defective drilled shafts, detected using CSL tests. A database of flaws is presented depending on their location, intensity and remediation method. Procedures that allow the flaws to be analyzed are presented in order to dismiss or classify them as defects. In many cases, the CSL test may indicate an anomaly, but by coring the concrete and analyzing the structural demands and conditions, the flaw can be classified as non-severe. When flaws are classified as defects, their repair will depend on the area where they are located in the drilled shaft pile. In this document two procedures are described for repairing defects depending on their location. For defects in the drilled shaft head area, the procedure takes into account the interaction between the new and old concrete. For repairing the middle zone of the drilled shaft by grouting, the major concerns are the difficulty of accessing through the drilled shaft at deep depths and the communication between boreholes. For defects at the drilled shaft tip, two proposed remediation methods are presented. Finally, tomography tests are presented to compare the effectiveness of remediation by grouting.

Oct 1, 2022

By James Warner

Investigations of the sinkhole indicated that the loose, disturbed ground was completely encircled by dense competent core. This confinement substantially increased the effectiveness of the compaction grouting compared to what might have been expected at a "greenfield" site. However, the 8 ft diameter circle shown in the plan view was only the surface expression of the sinkhole proper and the deep, loosened ground actually extended to a larger diameter of about 20 ft. The planned spacing of the grout holes was based on the finite element simulations using a target void ratio of less than 0.3 throughout the compacted ground within a 5 ft radius of the grout injection point. Because of the strong confinement effect, the layout of grout holes included one central primary hole surrounded by six secondary holes at a triangular spacing of about 5 ft. Since the disturbed ground was considered a confined cylinder, it was anticipated that the primary hole would perform the majority of work and the secondary holes would act as check holes, with progressively lesser grout takes as the loose ground densified.

Feb 10, 2003

By Eric S. Lindquist

Two microtunnel access shafts were constructed using the Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) method in the San Joaquin Delta region of California, east of San Francisco. Unlike conventional slurry walls and diaphragm walls that utilize concrete, soil mixing relies on blending the soils in situ with a cement slurry to create a soil-cement wall. Cutter Soil Mixing technology utilizes two sets of vertically mounted cutting wheels rotating about a horizontal axis to produce rectangular panels of treated soil. Overlapping of the soil mixed panels enabled the construction of two circular shafts. CSM panels were constructed to a depth of 29 m (95 ft) for the microtunnel jacking shaft and to a depth of 19 m (63 ft) for the microtunnel receiving shaft. The site presented several challenges, including the high depth of treatment, the variable nature of the alluvial soils, and the high water table. This paper describes the CSM technique and presents the design, construction, quality control measures and advantages of using this method for this project.

Jan 1, 2010

By Bartho J. Admiraal

"As part of the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere project, the largest aqueduct in Europe is being built in order for the A1 motorway to cross the Vecht River. The A1 consists of 12 lanes and the total width of the aqueduct will be 65 m (213 ft). The total length of the structure will be 620 m (2035 ft). Speed of construction is essential for the DBFM-contract, which forms the primary reason for choosing a building method with a horizontal water retaining barrier created by low pressure grouting. After final checks on the water tightness of the silica based layer (softgel), excavation to a depth of approximately 12 m (40 ft) below the water table could be started in order to build the aqueduct.This paper presents a new approach for the calculation of the required grout volumes needed to ensure a “softgel” layer without gaps or holes. The approach applies measurement of deviations due to execution aspects in a probabilistic model. With this model, one is able to study the effects in a field application, i.e. multiple rows of grouted spheres. The results are visualized in order to analyze the risk of holes more easily. It is evident that the existence of a hole means a major leakage. By completing multiple runs, the strategy for grout volumes can be adjusted to minimize this risk.INTRODUCTIONThe Dutch Department of Waterways and Public Works invests over € 4 billion between 2012-2020 to increase the capacity of 63 km (41 mi) motorways of one of Holland’s major corridors. The A1/A6 will be transformed over a distance of 20 kilometers (13 mi). Near Muiden, the current drawbridge on the A1 for crossing the Vecht river will be replaced by a new aqueduct to be located slightly south of the existing bridge."

Jan 1, 2016

By RavikiranVaidya, Vishal Dhamecha

Low Strain Pile Integrity Testing has been used in India since 1990’s and several have tried to demonstrate the utility and benefits of this method. However, use of this technology was limited till 1998 as not enough data maybe was not available to justify its use and application on major infrastructure and real estate projects. The first author has done significant work in this method resulting in its use in practically all sectors of the industry that use concrete bored pile foundations as a supporting element. The paper explains various signal enhancers or modifiers involved in processing of low strain test data and its implication on the final output. It also describes how the method can lead to abuse or can provide poor interpretation if incorrectly used. The current effort is to demonstrate that data collection and evaluation becomes complex with changes in soil stratum and pile profile. The paper highlights the present testing practices and provides a guideline for classification of pile integrity into few simple categories in Indian context rather than writing complex interpretations.

Sep 1, 2022

By Gang Guo, Zhong Liu

"In response to an increasing demand of anchored structures for underground space and transportation infrastructure in China, an innovative underreamed ground anchorage system was created. The novel anchorage system has provided more efficient functions with higher capacity at lower cost, because of the enlarged cylindrical body (known as ECB) sealed in capsule at bottom of anchorage. This paper presents the detailed structure of innovative anchorage system and its special features. To investigate the bearing mechanism of new anchorage, we evaluate its performance and failure mode based on the experimental results, and also indicate its strain-hardening load-displacement relationship. Unlike the shaft anchorages, it is identified no overall failure to be found in soil surrounding the underreamed anchorage. More importantly, the anchorage capacity is governed by the base resistance, which takes more than 80% of total pullout capacity resulting from the contribution of ECB. Finally a case history of anti-floating project introduces the new combined construction approach and procedure, which has provided the contribution to the quality control and cost efficiency.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe construction boom over two decades in China has resulted in an increasing demand for underground space and slope stability. The infrastructures market requires the more efficient anchorage systems for retaining structures, resisting uplift forces and slope protection. The major concern focuses on gaining higher capacity and lower cost resulted from perfecting anchorage systems. There are three main anchorage systems designed to achieve the above objectives: ? single bore multiple anchorage system (Barley 1997), ? regroutable anchorage system (Smoltczyk 1991), ? underreamed anchorage systems (Xanthakos 1991). Generally, the concept ? comparing with the other two, can be more competitive due to its distinct advantages. To improve the performance and durability of ground anchorages under the complex geological conditions and diversified engineering requirements, a number of different underreamed anchorage technologies had been used, which included cone - shape anchorage described by Liao, Wu and Shu (1997) in Taiwan, Soilex anchorage developed in Sweden (Massarsch et al. 1997), Soletanche anchorage proposed in France, blasting anchorage used in Czechoslovakia (Hobst and Zajic 1986), jet-grouting anchorage innovated in Europe (Anon 1988), as well as deep mixing anchorage created in Japan (Cheng et al. 2000).The underreamed anchorage systems have the remarkable advantages compared to the shaft anchorage system. However, there are also some weaknesses inherent in the underreamed systems. For instance, the mechanical underreamed anchorage is unsuitable in sand or waterbearing ground, because the enlarged hole is easy to collapse, and it is hard to ensure the quality of anchorages. On the other hand, relying on the blasting in deep hole, the geometrical space and dimension of enlarged hole is uncontrollable, meanwhile, the continuous blasting operations may easily cause the serious ground deformation and the negative effects to the completed anchorages."

Jan 1, 1900

By Frank J. Purcell

“Down The Hole” (DTH) hammer drilling is often necessary to advance the casing during pile construction where the test bores have determined difficult drilling conditions with obstructions such as boulders, cobble and glacial till. The use of compressed air to operate DTH hammers in foundation drilling has been a contentious point in many regions of the world due to its potential to disturb the ground around the pile being constructed. There are many examples of damage to adjacent building foundations where compressed air exiting the pile being drilled disturbed the subsurface around the building’s existing piles. This paper looks at the use of compressed air in DTH hammer foundation drilling and the move towards controlling the exhausted air to avoid over drilling the pile, causing potential damage to nearby piles. Simulated models of air flow penetration into the soil of different configurations of drill bits are discussed to highlight design changes employed to better control the air during the drilling process. A case study of the construction of a water-tight pipe pile wall for a building’s underground parking structure is studied to demonstrate the potential of DTH hammer foundation drilling where the air is fully controlled.

Nov 1, 2022

The pile inspector is a critical element in the quality control process necessary for a successful pile installation project. This guide is intended to provide the inspector with a basic understanding of only one of the many components of this process - the pile driving hammer. Pile driving hammers are used to install both bearing piles for structure foundations and sheet piles (and soldier piles) as used in retaining structures. In a single document, this guide offers a general presentation of the operation of the more common types of hammers the inspector is likely to encounter. It should make the information in the contractor's hammer submittal for the project more understandable. It should also provide an appreciation for the importance of a properly operating pile hammer. Prior to the start of most pile driving operations, the contractor will normally furnish a submittal to the engineer giving the specific pile driving equipment that he intends to use on the job. This submittal should include the make, model, and type of the intended pile driving hammer or hammers and their operating characteristics such as ram weight, rated energy, operating speed, external power requirements and, other pertinent information. Frequently, the operating characteristics are provided in the form of the manufacturer's specification sheet. The engineer will review this information and when he is satisfied, approve it and pass it on to the inspector. The driving criteria will have been determined by the engineer or others (the geotechnical engineer, consulting engineer, contractor, etc.) from the results of static analysis (for minimum penetration), driving during a test pile installation, Wave Equation analysis, dynamic formula, pile instrumentation during driving, static load test, or a combination of these or other appropriate analyses. The driving criteria can be a minimum penetration of driven pile length (embedded length), or a minimum (or maximum) blow count per unit of penetration. The pile inspector should become familiar with this information prior to the start of the job and should understand or seek help to comprehend the terminology and intent of each specification.

Jan 1, 1995

By Krishna R. Reddy, Jyoti K. Chetri, Girish Kumar

Geotechnical engineering encompasses a major portion of the civil and infrastructure projects. The large amounts of energy and resources typically used in these projects leads to undesirable emissions and wastes which contribute substantially towards global environmental impacts (e.g., global climate change). This could further include secondary economic and societal issues which are often unaccounted in traditional engineering design of the geotechnical projects. In order to address this issue, it is imperative to integrate the broader environmental, economic and social implications into decisions of a geotechnical project. Recent years have seen a major impetus on life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental sustainability of the geotechnical designs. However, there are no tools that can quantify the life cycle triple bottom line sustainability of potential design alternatives in a project with holistic considerations towards broader economic (indirect costs and benefits) and social impacts (stakeholder preferences, socio-environmental and socio-economic impacts). This study presents a new framework for quantitative assessment of life-cycle sustainability (QUALICS) for alternative designs in engineering projects. The framework integrates two multi-criteria decision analysis methods namely, the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (MIVES) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to support decision making on the potential design alternatives. In this study, a brief overview of the framework is presented. A case study demonstrating the use of QUALICS framework is discussed with its application to the sustainability assessment of two deep foundation systems, caissons and piles, over their design life. The technical designs of both systems are developed based on bearing capacity, both primary and secondary settlements, and structural integrity. The results from the sustainability assessment of the two deep foundation systems are discussed, and the most sustainable option based on different stakeholder preferences and site-specific conditions are identified.

Jan 1, 2019

By Sara Anderson, Rachel Nicholls, Tim Chapman, Janice Windle

"In city center sites around the world, and in particular in London, foundation reuse is becoming increasingly widespread as the ground is filled with detritus from previous developments. This paper sets out a systematic framework to consider the need for and benefits of foundation reuse and key issues to be resolved for foundation reuse to be successfully adopted on redevelopment projects. Once foundation reuse has been identified as a potential foundation solution there are several key stages in the design and construction process where the decision to reuse foundations needs to be assessed. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of ensuring that the foundations being installed now can more easily be reused in the future.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of re-using foundations is not new, and has been adopted on an isolated project-byproject basis for many years. However, over the past decade, interest in the potential of reusing existing piles and caissons within Europe has increased significantly, with a growing interest in the United States of America and Japan. The need has been driven by necessity: on many urban sites the space available for new foundations diminishes with each new set of piles, and these problems can only grow in the future.Initiatives such as the European Union's RuFUS (Re-use of Foundations for Urban Sites) research project have resulted in identification of the key issues for technical viability and risk that have previously hampered potential foundation reuse projects.There is a need to define a systematic approach to the reuse of foundations so that the risks associated with reuse can be identified, managed and mitigated. This requires improvements in knowledge to provide confidence in the long term behaviour of the foundation support and address the risks involved in reusing existing foundations to overcome perceived obstacles in making foundation reuse a realistic option for many sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Lawrence F. Johnsen, Marc J. Gallagher

"Micropiles are small diameter, bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements. The omission of micropiles from most United States building codes has resulted in the application of varying standards for design and installation. The ADSC/DFI Micropile Committee has developed a proposed section for the 2006 edition of the International Building Code (IBC 2006) covering micropiles. The proposed IBC 2006 micropile code section is presented, along with comparisons to existing micropile codes and guidelines. A discussion section is provided to clarify sections of the proposed code. IntroductionMicropiles, defined as small diameter (typically less than 12 inches outer diameter), bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements, are becoming common foundation elements for new construction, retrofits, and emergency repairs. Developed in Europe in the 1950's and used in United States practice since the late 1970's, micropiles are typically not addressed in building codes, particularly in the United States. As a result, micropiles are often reviewed by building officials to a variety of standards, including drilled shafts, caissons, cast-in-place bored piles, and concrete filled pipe piles. None of these adequately address the unique design and construction aspects of micropiles. Therefore, it became apparent to the foundation design and construction community that a micropile-specific code section was required.To that end, the International Association of Foundation Drilling and the Deep Foundations Institute (ADSC/DFI) Micropile Committee appointed a subcommittee in October 2003 to develop and submit a proposed micropile code section for the 2006 IBC. The subcommittee members included the two co-authors, as well as Tom Richards (Nicholson Construction Company), Tom Armour (DBM Contractors, Inc.), John Wolosick (Hayward Baker, Inc.), Allen Cadden (Schnabel Engineering) and Matt Niermann (Schnabel Foundation Company). At the time of the writing of this paper, the proposed code section has been presented at the IBC public hearing during which it was modified slightly. Final adoption (or rejection) will be determined by the IBC at the final action hearing in September 2005. The attached code section is the revised version following the public review hearings."

Jan 1, 2005